Of course birther martyr Terry Lakin -- who willingly destroyed his military career by refusing his deployment orders because he insisted he didn't know whether President Obama was eligible to be commander in chief -- wrote a book explaining said birther martyrdom. In fact, WorldNetDaily columnist (and birther) Jack Cashill wrote it, and WND is selling it. And, of course, WND is promoting said book in a July 14 article that inadvertently demonstrates what a sad, deluded man Lakin is:

Lakin notes that Obama claimed to have “had every official in Hawaii … confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii.”

“‘Every official in Hawaii’? I guess the president did not consult with Tim Adams. During the 2008 election cycle Adams served as senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu,” Lakin wrote.

Adams had stated, “There is no hospital record of his birth in Honolulu … and the Hawaii Department of Health told us in the Elections Office that there was no birth certificate.”

“If you don’t know about Adams, there is a reason why. Within a week of his one radio interview on the subject [he was] put under a gag order,” Lakin wrote. “As of this writing, no official in Hawaii has made a serious effort to look into Obama’s birth certificate, and those who said they did have not been able to keep their stories straight.”

As we've documented, Adams admitted in a (WND-proffered) affidavit that he has no firsthand knowledge of any birther-related claims.

As we've also documented, Adams has overstated the job he did as an election clerk in 2008. Glen Takahashi, the administrator of the Honolulu City Clerk's office, told David Weigel that Adams never actually had access to information about Barack Obama -- after all, he was not registered to vote in Hawaii, and searching for birth records was beyond the scope of Adams' job.

Lakin (and Cashill) citing Adams as some kind of authority on birth records in Hawaii is laughable. It shows that Lakin and Cashill remain deluded birthers, and they aren't interested in the truth. It's doubly sad that Lakin decided that believing delusions was worth ruining his military career for.

In an unusually fawning July 13 CNSNews.com article, editor in chief Terry Jeffrey slobbers all over William G. "Jerry" Boykin, who has just joined the right-wing Family Research Council. Sounding much more like a PR flack than a "news" reporter, Jeffrey dutifully recounts Boykin's military credentials and touts Boykin in his FRC role "hopes to do his part in helping Americans who believe in this nation’s traditional values win an intensifying 'culture war' for its future."

As befits a PR flack, Jeffrey dutifully ignores any sort of hint of controversy around Boykin, even though he has a lengthy history of making inflammatory and insensitive statements, mostly of the anti-Muslim variety, though he has also likened President Obama to Castro and Stalin.

Just consider this more evidence that CNS cares only about pushing a partisan agenda, not "news."

WorldNetDaily's latest missive in its obsession with "mob violence" by blacks is a July 14 article by Colin Flaherty touting how an obscure "teenage video blogger from Milwaukee" complaining about "our own people acting that way."

Flaherty offered no evidence why he elevated some guy on YouTube to a position of authority to speak for anyone on this subjet, given that he almost assuredly not have given him the same authority to speak about, say, the the Wisconsin governor recall election (in which he endorsed the Democrat).

Flaherty is not above crass self promotion, not a good sign for anyone considering himself a serious journalist. At one point in his article, he references "The 'white girl bleed a lot' beatdown" -- which just so happens to be the title of a self-published book he wrote.

WND again includes an "editor's note" at the top of Flaherty's article attempting to justify its race-baiting, in which it claims "WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims." Of course, when you are reporting only on crimes committed by blacks, as WND is doing here, it very clearly is race-baiting.

Ed Schultz says it's unpatriotic that Mitt Romney invested some of his money outside the U.S. Much as Schultz did with some of his money two years ago.

[...]

Then by Schultz's own reckoning he's unpatriotic for buying a fishing lodge in the wilds of Canada when he could have invested that money in the United States and helped Americans instead.

Coleman then unearths a 2010 clip of Schultz talking about his Canadian lodge.

While Schultz does promote excursions to the lodge for his listeners, it's clear making money on it is not a top priority for him. In the clip, he talks about how "I love to fish, I've fished all my life, I love it," and that he had been going to the lodge for years and ultimately had the opportunity to buy it.

That's a far cry from Romney's overseas investments, which are expected to make money as well as lower their taxes. Not even Coleman has accused Schultz of using his Canadian fishing lodge as a tax haven.

It seems Coleman can't tell the difference between a Canadian fishing lodge and a Bermuda tax shelter.

Your long association with unrepentant domestic terrorist and convicted felon G. Gordon Liddy -- i.e. regularly guest-hosting his radio show -- undermines any moral authority you might claim in berating Salon for having "completely given itself over the dark side" by reprinting articles from the Southern Poverty Law Center (which had the temerity to accurately report the paranoid remarks you sald to fellow paranoid Alex Jones).

The possibility that Mitt Romney might select Condoleezza Rice as his vice presidential candidate -- floated by a speculative, anonymous Drudge Report item -- has sent CNSNews.com into a tizzy becuase Rice is not rabidly anti-abortion and doesn't hate gays.

A July 13 article by editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey carried the alarmist headline "Romney Considering Pro-Choice Architect of Bush Foreign Policy for VP." Jeffrey seemed particularly upset that Rice considers herself "mildly pro-choice." Jeffrey wrote up Rice's position on abortion before he got around to discussing her foreign policy experience.

This was followed by another article the same day by Patrick Burke, who was alarmed that Rice said that "there needs to be some way for people to express their desire to live together through civil union."

CNS ultimately followed up with an article by Melanie Hunter reporting that Rice had denied interest in the VP slot.

CNS also gave the same passive-aggressive Heathering treatment to Romney himself for being insufficiently anti-gay. A July 13 article by Pete Winn highlighted Romney's statement to the NAACP that "I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed and sexual orientation."

I can’t ignore the glaring irony here. Freeman says there’s going to be trouble if we don’t re-elect Obama. Freeman surely doesn’t mean the guys “on the other side of the fence” – the conservatives – are going to cause disorder if Obama is defeated. Who, then, does Morgan Freeman fear will cause the “big trouble” if we fail to re-elect Obama? Is Freeman telling me the trouble will be germinated and generated by those on the other side of the fence from me? Is superstar Morgan Freeman telling me he’s afraid of me and my people, but if Obama loses, I’ve got to be afraid of him and his people? Sure sounds like it.

End the madness. All those who think this corrupt crowd is going to leave office voluntarily in January 2013 have never recovered from the drug-induced stupor of their youth. The election will be litigated, and they will stay in power during the interim, which will go on forever. Voting anomalies (i.e. voting other than Democrat) will be “investigated” by Eric Holder.

Just end it. Indict Obama, Biden and Holder for treason, sedition, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Lock them in the congressional bathroom during the interim. The exact charges can be determined by acting President John Boehner and his new Justice Department during the investigation that follows.

In 2008, 52.9 percent voted for Barack Obama – and that’s well within the margin of error on the Gallup poll.

I know what you’re going to say.

“Obama’s not an atheist! He says he’s a Christian.”

Right.

He’s a “Christian” who made his profession of faith in Jeremiah Wright’s church of hate and indignation. Excuse me, that’s not Christianity. That’s politics. It’s liberation theology. It’s Marxism with a few doses of opiates for the masses.

Barack Obama and his cadre of Obamaviks are counting on this depravity to win in November and finish the job of burying the remnants of America’s great experiment. Our government is now saturated with Retrogressive politicians and bureaucrats who view the Entrepreneur as the evil enemy because he stands in the way of their desire to control all aspects of every individual’s life.

Retrogressives are dangerous people. They lie; they steal; and, above all, they believe in the use of force. You cannot change them. You cannot reason with them. The only solution is to defeat them.

The reality is that the United States is now embroiled in a second civil war. The divide between liberty and tyranny is irreconcilable, and it’s time for those who believe in liberty to come to grips with the reality that the agenda of the Retrogressive is to transform the United States into a collectivist utopia where the government plans, controls and, yes, owns everything.

Who does President Barack Obama think he is that he can change the wording of the Declaration of Independence? Again and again he presumes to quote the great Declaration while making a significant change: He omits the word “Creator.”

[...]

Obama has done this so often that it can’t be a slip of the tongue or a glitch of the teleprompter. Changing the words of the Declaration of Independence is part of Obama’s determination to remove everything religious and every mention of God from every aspect of our public life in order to fundamentally transform us from “one nation under God” into one nation under the federal government, especially the executive branch, with no higher power recognized.

Although Obama’s immediate reaction to the court’s decision was one of unbridled glee, by the time this all plays out, he may find himself like the fencing master in the cartoon who apparently dodges his opponent’s sword, and says, “Aha, you missed!” a second before his severed head drops to the floor.

Romney was far from my first choice as the main challenger to Barack Obama – but now he’s the only one who can rid us of Obama. Remember the message from Obama through Russia’s then-President Medvedev to Vladimir Putin: “After my election, I’ll have more flexibility.” “Flexibility” to do what? God forbid we have to find out! I classify an Obama win as a national disaster. Many of you pretend to agree.

It might help explain why I fear a second term of Barack Obama so much.

I understand what Obama is and what he is doing because I was once like him: I am a former communist.

[...]

The only difference between Obama and me is that he never changed. He is as radical today as he was when he launched his political career in the living room of Ayers and Dohrn. He loathes all America stands for today as much as he did when he worked as a lawyer for the political racketeering ACORN.

I understand him. I can decode his rhetoric. I still know how the extreme left thinks. I know what their goals are. And I know how badly Obama and his entourage want to “fundamentally change” America.

That’s why this election year represents America’s last chance to save itself from ruin, from catastrophe, from irreversible calamity, from revolution.

A July 11 Newsmax article by Todd Beamon and John Bachman features, for no apparent reason, former Republican Rep. Vito Fossella opinion on Mitt Romney's chances of winning the White House, among other election-related topics.

As we'vepreviouslydetailed, Newsmax has been trying to rehabilitate Fossella's reputation after he left office in disgrace when a DUI arrest led to the revelation that Fossella had a mistress in Washington and had fathered a child with her.

Beamon and Bachman are careful not to explain how Fossella became an ex-congressman.

A study, “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism”, commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security identified the following characteristics of potential “terrorists.”

# Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;

# Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;

# People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty, opposed to the United Nations, etc.);

# Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;

# Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;

# People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

This is a President who called for a “Civilian National Security Force” on July 2, 2008, one that would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the U.S. military.”

Obama is putting in force everything a tyranny requires to replace the Republic.

As we detailed when WorldNetDaily tried the same misleading distortion, the study in question describes those "Perpetrators of Terrorism" as pepple involved in paramilitary or survivalist groups first and foremost, who may alsobe “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty.” Caruba dishonestly omits the study's reference to paramilitary or survivalist traits.

As for the "Civilian National Security Force" stuff -- which WND also has lied about -- Obama has specifically stated that it refers to an expansion of the foreign service.

Of course, it does no such thing. As Media Matters details, the study, in the journal Nature, estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden, and the record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August. There's nothing "global" about the study.

Further, the study doesn't cover the past 100 years, which Sheppard sorta admits by including a graph in his post showing a sharp rise in temperatures in the past century.

Sheppard seems to know that the facts don't live up to his screaming, overstated headline. By the second paragraph of his post, he was already altering what he claimed the study found, that it "completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic." But if he looked at that graph, he would see that the rate of temperature in the past century is arguably surprisingly rapid for such ashort period of time, especially compared with the slow overall rate of decline the graph shows over the previous centuries.

As is his wont, Sheppard took a cheap shot at Al Gore, calling global warming "Nobel laureate Al Gore's favorite money-making scam." Sheppard didn't say how much money he has made by being a professional denier.

So, what’s the matter with you? Do you suppose there’s some kind of political “heaven” where your eventual admittance will be a lot smoother if you can show you weren’t all that keen on Romney in the first place? Are you aware Mitt Romney is the only American with the ways and means to save us all? England begged America, in 1940, when England stood alone, “If you cannot help us, please don’t hinder us.” That’s an apt message from the Romney campaign to all who see the need to stop Obama.

Nobody’s asking you to lie, or even spin. Just select which pro-Romney truths glide most comfortably off your tongue and let’s hear them; loudly and with enthusiasm. It’s no crime to feign enthusiasm, in a worthy cause. Enthusiasm is vital in politics. Your own vote requires no enthusiasm. But your ability to get others to the polls, to donate, to volunteer, to get good things going – that demands enthusiasm. Morale is major. And with early love of Obama gone four years sour, Romney is much better positioned today to generate higher and wilder waves of morale.

If I can show enthusiasm for Romney, without a single day of acting school, you’ve got no excuse. Blunders. Failures. Disappointments. Cosmic idiocies. We’ve got them all, and our production rate is sure to climb in these remaining weeks. But that’s no excuse for failure to get in there and yell and scream and fight and produce and get it done for Mitt Romney.

Based on his long and contradictory political record, I do not have much hope that Romney is going to do a 180 if he wins. I don’t think he will steer the nation on the U-turn course that is absolutely necessary to save us from the brink of disaster.

However, the idea of a second term for Obama genuinely scares me. I don’t believe America could ever recover from such a cataclysm. The country will suffer irreparable harm, if it hasn’t done so already.

While I remain a principled constitutionalist who doesn’t believe in voting for anyone who does not understand and embrace its limitations on federal power, I believe 2012 is one of those rare election years in which freedom-loving Americans will, out of necessity, be forced to vote defensively.

I won’t be voting for Romney because I think he will save America or reverse our dangerous course. But I will likely be voting for him to buy America the time it needs to avoid catastrophe. It’s just that simple – and sad.

We're all too familiar with the Media Research Center's idea of "mediaresearch." Here's another example.

A July 9 "special edition" of the MRC's "Notable Quotables" feature purports to document "the media’s continuing love affair with Barack Obama." The headline on it reads, "Special Edition: Still Slobbering Over Barack Obama."

But the MRC has a peculiar definition of "still" and "continuing." Only two of the 26 quotes listed are from this year; many of them date from 2009. But really -- 26 cherry-picked quotes over four years somehow proves that "the media" is "still slobbering" over Obama?

The MRC also fails to distinguish between reporters and commentators. It even throws in as one example "Simon & Schuster’s promotional language for The Promise: President Obama, Year One, a book released May 18, 2010, by Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter." Press releases are part of "the media"?

The MRC, it seems, is so obsessed with treating any positive description of Obama as "slobbering" that its manufactured outrage over it is utterly meaningless. Its supporters, though, seem unable to tell the difference between it and genuine outrage, so such shoddy "research" must be working out for the MRC.

Newsmax has added anti-abortion activist Alveda King as a columnist. But that's not all -- Newsmax is calling her "Dr. Alveda King," as the header on her column archive shows:

But as we've noted, and others have pointed out, King has never earned a doctorate degree; the one being referenced here is honorary.

People who have never earned a Ph.D. don't get to call themselves "Dr." -- and anyway, standard news style is to reserve that title only for those with medical degrees -- but Alveda King does, and Newsmax, which should know better, is allowing it to happen.

We've detailedWorldNetDaily'smassiverace-baitingeffort by hyping alleged incidents of violence by "mobs" of blacks. The latest effort, a July 11 article by race-baiting expert Colin Flaherty repeating an unsubstantiated claim that "99.9 percent" of defendants in "murders, rapes, robberies and home invasions" in one city were "Afro-American," adds for the first time an editor's note explaining said race-baiting:

Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.

But isn't it racist to report only violence committed by blacks, as WND is doing? WND doesn't seem to want to answer that question. It's more happy to pretend it's offering "balance" when WND has never practiced such balance on its own website.

Note also WND's weasel words claiming that there "appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse." Not that there actually is one -- WND is clearly interested only in appearance, not fact.

Indeed, WND is a tad defensive about its race-baiting. Responding to ConWebWatch's highlighting of a recent Flaherty piece, WND tweeted: "Reporting facts is not 'race-baiting' Chicago is a war zone right now. So is Baltimore."

WND seems to think that reporting "facts" is a sufficient defense for its race-baiting. But it has never claimed that it reports all the facts -- and it's there the problem resides.